Matthew 6:7-15 - Forgiven and Forgiving

The last thing we’re going to look at in this passage is the second ‘we’ petition in v.12, and the corresponding reiteration Jesus gives in vv.14-15. As mentioned briefly in the previous post, v.12 is an expression of dependence on God for forgiveness and the acknowledgment that God’s willingness to forgive us is contingent upon our forgiving those who sin against us: “And forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors.”

The connection between our being forgiven and our being forgiving is so fundamental that Jesus returns to it and clarifies its importance in vv.14-15: “For if you forgive men their transgressions your heavenly Father also will forgive you. But if you do not forgive men, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.” Does this mean that our salvation is based upon works?

In a nutshell, no. The key here is to notice what word Jesus is using to refer to God. If you remember, I mentioned before that in Matthew, when Jesus is speaking to His disciples about God, He uses the word ‘Father’. When speaking to the larger crowd, He uses the word ‘God’. That the disciples can pray at all, and especially using the name ‘Father,’ is a result of God’s saving grace. When we are saved, we are forgiven by God as Judge and are brought into a right relationship with Him. However, we continue to sin, and need to be forgiven by Him as Father. This is why we are to continue to confess sin (1John 1:8-9).

Unrepentant sin in our lives interrupts our fellowship with our Father. Proverbs 28:9 reads, “He who turns away his ear from listening to the law, even his prayer is an abomination.”

Also, Psalm 66:18, “If I regard wickedness in my heart, The Lord will not hear.”

To refuse to forgive someone is itself sin, as is indicated by this very passage in Matt 6, and also in Matt 18:21-35. Therefore, when we come to God to ask for forgiveness while we are simultaneously withholding forgiveness from someone else, we have the unrepentant sin of unforgiveness in our lives, for which we cannot be forgiven. That is why Jesus is addressing this as part of His instruction on prayer. The sin of unforgiveness disrupts our fellowship with God, excludes our being forgiven by God for it, and hinders our ability to communicate with Him in prayer. Our asking for forgiveness provides the occasion to reflect on our own heart and look for any forgiveness that we are withholding from others.

So, does Jesus mean that if we don’t forgive someone we lose our salvation or that we were never saved to begin with? No. He is simply saying (and I believe this is the reason for returning to the theme in v.14 right after the last part of the model prayer) that if we are withholding forgiveness from someone, that represents sin in our own life that has not been confessed, we have not repented of it, and therefore we are not forgiven by God. We are still saved. God is still our Father (again, notice v.15, “if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions”). It’s just that our broken horizontal relationship with man has interrupted our perfect vertical relationship with our Father.

Some of you may be breathing a sigh of relief. That’s not a good sign. Short of hell, what could be worse than anything which deprives us of that precious and supremely fulfilling fellowship with the Father for which He killed His Son to provide us? Friends, let’s not take this lightly. If you’re holding a grudge against someone, you must deal with it, now. You must give up any right against that person. It does not matter how deeply you’ve been hurt or what that person did. This passage makes no exceptions.

If the person you need to forgive has already asked for your forgiveness, contact them and extend it. If that person hasn’t asked for forgiveness or doesn’t even know they’ve hurt you, simply forgive them without a word. You’ve been forgiven much, so you must also forgive.

I hope these last few posts have been helpful. I just want to reiterate what I believe is the main idea of this passage. The concern here is our posture of prayer. It should be one of reverence and submission to God in all things. We are not approaching Him to give Him information. We are humbly expressing dependence and deference. We seek His glory, His kingdom, His will, His sustenance, His forgiveness, and His divine protection. His. This kind of prayer is profoundly peaceful and profoundly God-centered.

May it be a hallmark of our lives.

Next time, Matthew 7:15-23. Drink deep.

Intermission

I realize it has been over two weeks since I posted – life is getting very busy for us. I want to let you know about some things going on with Shelby and me.

The most significant thing is that we are planting a new church in West Chester. It is a co-pastorate and my primary role will be preaching. The other pastor is Rick Jones, a gifted teacher and close friend. How we came to this point is a long story, but we are very excited about what the future holds. Our two families have been on very similar journeys the last few years and the Lord has burdened us separately, and now together, that the state of preaching in the evangelical church has deteriorated to the point that the body is in danger. We have been moved to plant a church committed to the verse-by-verse exposition of Truth.

What this means for me is another significant time commitment. In addition to loving my family, working, going to seminary, and home-schooling the kids, I will now be trying to scrape together another 15-20 hours a week to prepare to preach. Priorities have necessarily shifted and I’m afraid that blogging will fall close to the bottom. I will do my best to post here, but if something has to give, this is what it will be. However, Rick and I are considering doing a blog together as part of our pastoral care for the new flock. This will be much easier to maintain since two keyboards are better than one! It will most likely be a combination of the styles of the blogs both of us are currently writing. (You can see Rick’s here.) That is, there will be expositional content, as well as insight into issues in the culture, the media, threats to the body, and evangelicalism at-large.

Additionally, the Spring semester is now underway and it looks to be my most challenging, yet. I would greatly appreciate your prayers.

With all that said, I will do what I can, when I can, but at this point I don’t know with what frequency I’ll be able to post. I’d recommend subscribing to this blog by email or RSS feed (the links over on the right side of the screen). That way whenever I do post, you'll get it automatically without having to check this site all the time.

Thanks for reading. In the meantime, drink deep.

Matthew 6:7-15 - The "We" Petitions

Okay, the second part of the model prayer is commonly referred to as the ‘we’ petitions. They are never called the ‘I’ petitions, which is what my prayer life has historically looked like. Each of the petitions reflect two things: a corporate sense of identity and total dependence on God. These both serve to make prayer more God-centered, and less me-centered.

I don’t want to be found saying that it is improper to express a need to God using the first-person singular, ‘I’ or ‘me’. Certainly we find that very thing in Jesus’ prayers elsewhere. But because of the pronouns used here and the short nature of the prayer as a whole, I think the idea being communicated is not so much a formula for prayer, but the proper attitude and posture of prayer. It is about God, not me – submission to Him and dependence on Him. Again, this reflects what Jesus has said about prayer in vv. 7-8: don’t think that many words will make the difference – God already knows what you need. We don’t pray to inform Him. If this is the case, what else can Jesus be communicating but that prayer is a simple expression of submission to and dependence on God in every area of life?

Let’s look at the first ‘you’ petition in v.11, “Give us today our daily bread.” There is a wide range of interpretations of this verse. I think the most straightforward is the one to be desired. Lord, provide for our physical needs today. This is just a very simple expression of dependence on God for all of the things necessary for our survival and it follows the attitude and posture of the ‘You’ petitions. The simplicity and brevity of the request are a continuation of the reverence and submission seen in the first half of the prayer. Even though it asks for something we need, it is still God-centered.

This simple request takes away the need to make our case before God. I find myself often giving God as many reasons as I can come up with for Him to give me that for which I’m praying. Instead, when I pray, “Lord, please provide what I need today,” I am actually saying two things: 1) Lord I’m completely dependent upon you, and 2) Lord, You decide what it is that I need today. Do you see how such an attitude would serve to dissipate anxiety? This sort of prayer trusts the Lord’s answer.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be specific in what we pray for. Again, I think the point is our attitude.

The next petition in v.12, “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors,” I will discuss more thoroughly with vv.14-15 in the next post. I’ll just point out here that we see a continued dependence on God, this time for the forgiveness of sin.

The last petition is in v. 13, “And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.” [The Greek text makes ‘evil one’ a more accurate translation than ‘evil.’] This verse holds huge theological significance. As the preceding verses have expressed dependence on God and His sovereignty, so this verse recognizes God’s sovereignty over temptation and the devil. Many people don’t like the idea that God controls evil. Most people, probably. But if we look back at chapter 4 at Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness, we see clearly that God is in control. 4:1 reads, “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.” The Spirit of God led Jesus into the wilderness for the purpose of being tempted. In other words, the Spirit led Jesus into temptation. I am not saying the Spirit tempted Him. The devil did. James 1:13 makes it clear that God tempts no one. But God does lead us into temptation. Matthew 4:1 clearly states this and Matthew 6:13 supports this idea. Why would Jesus teach the disciples to ask God not to do something that it was not in God’s nature to do?

We know from accounts all over the Bible that God indirectly controls evil. One of the most notable examples is in the book of Job. Why was Job afflicted? Was it because Satan wanted Him to be? No. Ultimately, it was because God allowed him to be. Lamentations 3:38 reads, “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?” God is sovereign over all things, good and evil.

I don’t want to get into a theological debate, but it is important to note that the model prayer teaches us to recognize that God is sovereign over temptation and the devil’s activities and that it is appropriate to ask God to shield us from those things. The proper attitude expressed by the prayer also indicates a submission to God’s will in this area and all others – “Your will be done,” in v.10.

So in all the ‘we’ petitions we continue to see a God-centered view of prayer just like in the ‘You’ petitions. Let’s not forget that this model prayer communicates first and foremost a posture of submission, dependence, and reverence for God, rather than a formula for effective prayer. The attitude from which we pray will be the fountain from which the actual words spring.

Before ending this post, there is a related issue in evangelicalism that I’d like to address. It is called contemplative prayer, or centering prayer. In a nut shell, this is a kind of “prayer” in which you empty your mind either through total stillness and silence or by repeating a single word over and over. The goal is to commune with God and perhaps hear Him speaking to you.

It is being promoted by many in the emerging church and purpose-driven community. I would encourage you to look it up online. There is a plethora of material from both proponents and opponents. Given the explanation from those who promote it, spend some time thinking about whether or not it is Scriptural. Does Scripture teach us to empty our minds? You might take a look at Psalm 119 as you ponder this – does the Psalmist speak of emptying his mind or filling it? With what does he desire to fill it? Does the passage we’ve just studied encourage us to be silent and listen?

Many who promote contemplative prayer cite Psalm 46:10, sometimes translated as, “Be still and know that I am God.” This is a grievous proof-text wrenched out of context. A more accurate translation is, “Cease striving, and know that I am God.” You might take a look at the context and see what you think. But without this verse, the contemplative prayer crowd is up a creek without a paddle when it comes to Scriptural justification.

I believe that Scripture is how God speaks to man. Prayer is how man speaks to God. Contemplative prayer seeks to create an alternative revelation of God outside of the Word. It should be noted that the people promoting this are the same people who do not uphold the inerrancy of Scripture.

For next time, think about the connection between prayer and forgiveness, our being forgiving and being forgiven.

Matthew 6:7-15 - The "You" Petitions

Okay, let’s look at the first petition in the prayer, v.9, “Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.” First, this is to be a model prayer, not something to be recited all the time. The Greek word houtos means ‘like this’ or ‘in this manner.’ So, Jesus is giving us an example, not something to memorize and recite.

Second, the reference to God as ‘Father’ is important. In the book of Matthew, whenever Jesus is addressing those outside His group of disciples, He refers to God as ‘God’. Whenever He is talking to the disciples, though, He refers to God as ‘Father’ and frequently, ‘Your Father.’ We see this quite a few times in the Sermon of the Mount. Another thing to note is the importance placed on the identity of one’s father in the Jewish culture. A person’s identity was tied up in who the father was. If your father was a fisherman, you would be a fisherman. If your father was a tax collector, you would be a tax collector. And famously, if your father was a carpenter, you would be a carpenter. So, here Jesus is pointing out the close relationship between the one praying and the One to Whom he is praying, and the idea that our identity is tied up in our Heavenly Father.

At the same time, He adds, “who is in heaven.” The idea is that God is near, ‘Our Father’, and at the same time far above us, ‘who is in heaven.’ Theologians refer to these to ideas as God’s immanence and transcendence, respectively. I think this shows again, as I mentioned in my last post, that we are able to come to God in prayer boldly since God is our Father, but we must also approach Him in reverence, knowing that He is far above us.

Third, what does ‘hallowed be Your name’ mean? A better translation would be, ‘let Your name be reverenced.’ The Greek word translated ‘hallowed’ could be defined as ‘treated as holy.’ So, here again we have the idea of reverence for God, deference to His holiness, assuming the proper posture of prayer. Another way that the translation ‘hallowed be your name’ fails is that it doesn’t bring across the fact that this is a petition to God asking Him to do something. “Father, let Your name be treated as holy. Make the world to reverence Your name. Take the honor due You.”

It is instructive that this is the first petition made in the prayer. I think this is significant. Our number one objective in everything, including our prayers, should be that God be glorified. Our number one desire should be that the name of God be reverenced and treated as holy in the world. Can you see how this prepares our heart and attitude to come before the Lord? When we come to Him saying, “First and foremost, God, be glorified,” every other concern that we bring to Him is put its proper perspective, that is, is takes its rightful place as secondary. When what we truly want most is for God to be reverenced, glorified, and honored, our hearts are prepared to accept and embrace whatever way God may respond to the rest of our prayer. Jesus is communicating the proper reverence and submission that should be present in our hearts and words during prayer.

Moving on to v.10, we see the second petition, “Let your kingdom come.” This touches on one of the hallmarks of Jesus’ preaching in the book of Matthew, the kingdom of God. It most likely denotes God’s kingly rule and the exercise of His power and authority. This petition then is that God’s rule might be manifested on the earth. It is completely forward looking, not focused on the here and now. It expresses a longing for God Himself above all other things. In my own life, my prayers are almost universally intent on the present or near future. Rarely have I prayed longing for the coming of the last days when God’s dominion will be completely manifested.

The focus on God continues with the third petition, “Let your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” This one is closely tied to the second. It longs for lasting change on the earth, God’s moral will fully realized on earth as in heaven. It shows a complete submission to the Lord. Jesus prays this phrase verbatim in the Garden of Gethsemane in Matt 26:42.

These first three petitions are sometimes referred to as “You” petitions because they are all focused on God. Let Your name be reverenced, Your kingdom come, Your will be done. This model prayer is God-centered and it demonstrates for us the proper perspective of prayer. While we may come to the Lord with our own requests, our bottom-line concern in every prayer should be God’s reputation, God’s kingdom, and God’s will. “Not my will, but Thine.” There is no naming and claiming here. That idea is so grossly foreign to this prayer and it should be rejected.

What a dramatic impact there would be, not only on our prayer lives but also on our attitude and perspective in all things, if every time we came to the Lord in prayer we first aligned our motives and our desires with the Lord’s and sought the accomplishment of His will above all things.

We’ll see next time how even the next three petitions, sometimes called the “We” petitions, are also completely God-centered. Drink deep.

Matthew 6:7-15 - Babbling Prayer

This passage of Scripture will be a challenge to many of us. I know for me personally it really opened my eyes to what prayer is really all about. Prayer is my lining myself up with the purposes of God and acknowledging my utter dependence on Him for everything in my life. If you were to look at a transcript of my prayer life over the last ten years you would probably get the impression that prayer is primarily concerned with informing God about our needs and that this is best done by saying the same thing over and over, attempting to wear God down and get Him to do what we want. Matthew 6:7-15 shows us that this is precisely the opposite of what prayer should be.

First, let’s talk about how this passage fits into the context. In this section of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus addresses acts of piety, including alms-giving, prayer, and fasting, warning the disciples against doing these practices in order to be noticed by men. 6:1 is the key verse for this section, which ends in 6:18. This key verse reads, “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.” Within this section, the passage at hand functions as an excursus, or parenthetical section, between the teachings on prayer and fasting. In vs. 5-6, Jesus has already commented on praying out of a desire to be seen as pious. Now he turns to the act of praying itself.

Verses 7-8 address the issue of thoughtless prayer. In v.7, Jesus warns us not to use meaningless repetition. It literally means, ‘do not babble.’ He compares this kind of prayer to the prayers of the Gentiles, who think that the more they say, the better chance they will be answered.

You may have noticed in your own life a tendency to do this. Sometimes I am guilty of saying the same thing in as many different ways as possible. The next day I say the same basic prayers just varying the vocabulary used. Then there are times when I pray and find my mind wandering and thinking about a dozen other things rather than about what I am saying to the Lord.

In v.8, Jesus exposes the false conception of prayer that leads to meaningless repetition. “So do not be like them [the Gentiles]; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.” We assume that we are telling God things He doesn’t know. But He does know what we need and it is therefore unnecessary for us to say the same thing over and over. We also, whether in theory or not – certainly in practice – assume that the bulk of prayer is our asking God to do things for us. Jesus will show in the following verses that this is not the case. Of course, God wants to hear our requests, but when that is the mainstay of our prayer lives, we are missing the point.

I think there are a couple of things we should take from these two verses. First, our requests should be to the point without saying the same thing over and over. God knows what is going on. Sure we should pray consistently and with persistence, but I don’t think we should spend a lot of time helping God to see all the reasons why it would behoove Him to come down on our side on this or that issue. As we’ll see in the model prayer, prayer is a mixture of request and submission, with submission being the higher priority.

So what does this mean for the model that Jesus sets for us as we see Him in the Gospels spending entire nights in prayer? Again, we assume based on our false conception of prayer that Jesus spent that whole time asking for things. We see in Jesus’ prayers not only requests for Himself, but supplication on the behalf of others, and the submission of Himself to the Father’s will.

Second, prayer should be characterized by reverence for God. When we approach the throne, we should feel the weight of that act. We are talking to Almighty God, the sovereign, omniscient Creator. An awareness of His infinite holiness should preclude any mindless, mechanical speech. It is irreverence that allows us to utter babbling prayers. If I had the opportunity to speak with the President, my head would undoubtedly be in the game. How much more should my thoughts be intent on the Lord when I approach Him in prayer.

Much of our reverence for God has been lost in the last several decades as we have become more concerned with pleasing men than pleasing the Lord. I lay the blame at the feet of pastors who have assumed a ‘do what works’ mentality in reference to ministry methodology. The attempt to look and act cool to the world has resulted in such a casual atmosphere in our churches that God is treated like He’s our kid brother or drinking buddy. A pastor who does not model reverence for the Lord from the pulpit by being careful with the Word, sets the tone for the church, which results in a congregation that is able to enter prayer feeling like they are talking to their next door neighbor.

Of course, God is our Father. He is not a God who is far away, but a God who has come near. That does not mean, however, that He has changed from the Holy God we see in Isaiah 6 and Revelation 4. Due to the sacrifice of the Son, we have the privilege of approaching the throne of grace with boldness, but we must do so with reverence. It is that reverence that puts us in a posture to do what Jesus shows us in His model prayer – align ourselves with His sovereign will and acknowledge our complete dependence on Him. When we approach Him with reverence, it is natural to say, “Your will be done” and “We need you, Lord.”

I have found it to be good for my spirit to pray on my knees. There is nothing super spiritual about it, but it helps me to remember who I am talking to and what a privilege it is to do so. It puts me in a reverent frame of mind and spirit.

Next time, we’ll look at the first half of the model prayer. Drink deep.

Matthew 5:38-42 - Detecting the Errors, Part 2

Okay, verse 41: “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.”

I’ll remind you that in Bell’s mind this means that when a Roman soldier forces you to carry his stuff for one mile, which Bell says was the legal limit, you should continue to carry his stuff past the one mile marker and therefore put the soldier in a position of weakness. You will have forced him to treat you with respect because he needs you to give him back his stuff so that he won’t get in trouble with the government for having someone carry his stuff past the legal limit of one mile.

Two things jump out at me. First, Bell has built his whole interpretation of this passage on the fact that the Romans were an extremely violent culture and that the Jews needed a way to resist in a non-violent manner. But suddenly, when Bell gets to this verse, the Romans become pacifists. These brutes, whom Bell portrays in his interpretation of v.39 as having a penchant for beating Jews, have turned hippie for no apparent reason. Does it make any logical sense that a Roman soldier wouldn’t beat the hound out of a Jew who refused to give him his rightful belongings? Does it make any logical sense that a Roman would allow himself to be forced to say to a Jew, “Please, give me my stuff back”? No, it does not.

Second, how would a third party standing near the one mile marker know that it was the one mile marker? In other words, short of satellite surveillance, how would anyone know that this Jew had been carrying the Roman’s stuff for more than one mile? If a witness had been on the same road and gone the same distance and therefore knew when the one mile marker had been past, the witness would also see that the Jew refused to give the Roman his stuff and the violation was therefore not the Roman’s fault. In fact, it would be far more likely that the Jew would be charged with theft, rather than the Roman being charged with forced labor.

So, we’ve seen with each of the three examples Jesus gives illustrating the principle in v.39, “do not resist an evil person,” that the verses themselves do not allow Bell’s interpretation. But what about the context? I asked you last time to take a look at v.42. Every study I checked shows v.42 as a part of the passage we have been talking about. A cursory reading of the text also makes it clear that vv.38-42 are one passage. What does v.42 tell us?

"Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.” Why would Bell leave this verse out of his message? I think the answer is obvious: it ruins his interpretation of the preceding verses. It simply does not fit the idea of asserting your rights against someone else. It runs opposite of Bell’s campaign to force the strong to treat the weak as equals.

Now let’s widen our context a little and look at the preceding sections. First, we have the opening section, the Beatitudes - things like, blessed are the meek, blessed are those who are persecuted, blessed are the peacemakers. That doesn’t sound anything like the spirit Bell proposes in his message, which says, “assert yourself and make people stop persecuting you.” Next, we have a series of sections beginning in v.21 in which Jesus gives an OT commandment and then proceeds to raise the bar, calling on the listener to pay closer attention to the heart issue involved in each commandment and not just the letter of the law. For example, in vv.21-22 we read, “You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”

Does that sound like something that the people would be cheering about? If you are angry with your brother, you deserve the same punishment as a murderer – does that make you feel good? No? That’s because Jesus is raising the bar. What we find in the Sermon on the Mount, is Jesus saying a lot of harsh things. If you lust, you are an adulterer. If you marry a divorced woman, you are an adulterer. If your right eye causes you to stumble, tear it out. If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. Love your enemies. Do not love the things of this world. Do not worry about any of your own needs. Do not judge. The gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life. Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

To these Rob Bell would add: “Assert yourself and force your enemy to treat you as an equal." "Reclaim your own diginity." "Assume a position of power." "Take the initiative away from your enemy." His interpretation, when viewed from the context of the entire Sermon, sticks out like a sore thumb. It runs counter to everything else Jesus said. It is not just off - it is the exact opposite of what the verses are teaching. The Sermon has absolutely nothing to do with dignity, non-violent resistance, or asserting yourself. It is about selflessness, humility, discipleship, and suffering. But Bell is saying that in a Sermon full of sayings that would be very hard to hear, there are three verses which would really excite the listeners. It doesn't make sense.

What about Jesus’ example? Did He practice what Bell has proposed? No. Jesus consistently put others before Himself and the greatest picture of this is in the Passion. Isaiah 53:7 reads, “He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth.” Jesus was struck repeatedly, and yet He did not assert Himself and force His attackers to treat Him like an equal. His clothes were taken away, leaving Him naked before the world, and yet somehow the Jewish leaders were not shamed by it or forced to treat Him with respect.

Scripture never records Jesus living the interpretation that Bell gives. It shows Him doing the opposite. So, if Rob Bell is correct, Jesus is a hypocrite.

Now, how do we know what the right interpretation is? As I alluded to above, in the surrounding context, Jesus repeatedly uses the phrases, “You have heard it said...” and “But I say to you...” He uses these phrases to signal His main points. In the case of our passage, He says, “You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, ‘Do not resist an evil person.’” That is the main idea - do not resist an evil person. Jesus then illustrates the point with the three examples in verses 39-41. There is no reason to try to find a meaning beneath the text of the three examples. Jesus has already told us what He means by the examples - do not resist an evil person. The best understanding of the examples is the straightforward meaning of the words. If someone hits you on your right cheek (whether this is a metaphor for an insult or not), let him hit your left cheek also. If someone sues you for your cloak, give him more than is required - give him your coat, too. If someone forces you to go a mile with him, do more than is required - go with him two. In other words, do not resist an evil person. Then in v.42 he recaps the idea of not resisting an evil person.

This is why it is dangerous to have a preacher who doesn’t preach all the way through a book of the bible. When he preaches a passage from one book one week and another the next week, he is out of touch with the context and can end up making big mistakes, even unintentionally.

I have couple of things to say to Rob Bell. If I ever have the opportunity to speak to him face to face I will say it then. But on the off chance that he may stumble upon this post, I’ll leave it here.

First, thank you, Rob, for providing us with the grossest, most outrageous abuse of a text that I have ever personally seen. You have given us a great training tool. You so thoroughly distorted the meaning of the words of these verses, that we were able to see from multiple angles what it looks like when someone has absolutely no regard for sound principles of interpretation. My prayer is that those who have looked at your view of this passage will have the discernment to recognize error in your more subtle counterparts.

Second, shame on you, Rob, for providing us with the grossest, most outrageous abuse of a text that I have ever personally seen. I fear for you that you may be a fulfillment of 2 Tim 4:3-4 and James 3:1. You are a danger to the body of Christ. I pray that the Lord, for His own glory, will either open your eyes or close your mouth.


For next time, Matthew 6:7-15. Drink deep.

Matthew 5:38-42 - Detecting the Errors, Part 1

There are two things that might make Rob Bell’s interpretation fascinating. First, no one has ever heard it before. That should always be a huge red flag. I've said it before, I'll keep saying it, what are the odds that in the 2000 year history of the church someone in Michigan c.2006 is the first person to have come up with the correct interpretation of this passage? It is as arrogant as it is crazy. In effect, to espouse such an innovative interpretation is to say that Augustine got it wrong. Athanasius got it wrong. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Schaeffer, Grudem, Sproul, MacArthur, Piper - all got it wrong! But not Rob Bell. Second, this interpretation is fascinating and attractive because it brings in all this extra-biblical information about 1st century Jewish culture. What we have to keep in mind with that kind of thing is that it doesn't matter if every history book in the world says the same thing, if a piece of historical information leads to an interpretation that simply is not allowed by the text, then the historical information is suspect, not the Holy Scriptures. And that is precisely what we have in this case. In order for Rob Bell's interpretation to be valid, the rest of the Sermon on the Mount must be either thrown out or rewritten. And actually, much of the rest of the NT becomes obsolete because what Bell has proposed here is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Scriptures.

I want to you to hear me very clearly once again: Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan is a false teacher. I may sound like a broken record, but somebody has to. There is a pervasive unwillingness in the pulpits of the modern church to call a spade a spade. I’ll not be found guilty of looking the other way as a wolf snatches and scatters the sheep. His handling of the passage we are looking at is indicative of his recklessness with the Word, a recklessness that has led him to espouse a host of heretical positions.

But, friends, stick to the text, be a slave to the text, and you will not fall prey to the false teachings of all the wolves on the prowl out there. Learn to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

So, let’s look at the specifics. There is so much to say here I almost don’t know where to begin. But we’ll start with the text itself, then look at the context. If you have not read my last post, now would be a good time to do that since most of what follows won’t make any sense otherwise.

Bell’s interpretation has problems from the very beginning – v.38: “You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' 39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person.” Do not resist an evil person. Do not resist an evil person. Do not resist an evil person. Do not resist an evil person. And yet, Bell’s interpretation could be summed up in the statement, “Here’s how to resist an evil person.” He has made this passage mean precisely the opposite of what it says. Here is a rule of thumb that should be so obvious it is ridiculous to even put it in writing: any time a teacher proposes an interpretation that flips the plain meaning of the text on its head, discount whatever he says.

Things don’t get better for Bell as we move forward – v.39b: “but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” He claims that because it would be improper to use the bathroom hand (left hand) to slap someone, this first slap must be a backhand slap with the right hand. He further claims that the victim’s turning the other cheek to the attacker would force the attacker to hit him with a closed fist, and thereby treat the victim as an equal.

This logic has several holes. First, the attacker could simply give an open-handed slap with the palm to the left cheek. Second, since the Romans had such a disdain for the Jews, there is no reason to think that the Romans would have had any qualms about using their bathroom hands to slap the Jews. Third, if the Romans were so prone to gratuitous violence, it is not likely that they would have allowed a lowly Jew to force them to treat the Jews like equals. Fourth, Bell would have us believe that these masters of brutality have only two ways to hurt people: a backhand and a punch.

What does the text say? “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” Couple that with the first half of the verse – “Do not resist an evil person” – and what do you have? You have a verse that tells you not to resist an evil person - when he strikes your right cheek, let him slap the other also. Just read the text, Rob.

Verse 40: "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.” Bell says that this verse is a command to get completely naked and thereby shame the oppressor into treating you like an equal. He sites Gen 9:20-25, where Noah’s son Ham sees him naked and is cursed. Bell extrapolates from this that it was more shameful in the Jewish culture to see someone naked than to be seen naked.

There are a couple of problems with this. Huge problems. First, the idea that nakedness was a shame to the viewer and not the naked person doesn't work with the whole counsel of Scripture. While it is true that it was definitely not a good thing to look at another person naked, there is even more biblical evidence that shame was more closely associated with one's own nakedness. Adam and Eve hid themselves from God because they were ashamed by their own nakedness. In Deut. 28:48, as God is outlining the consequences of disobedience, one of the things listed is slavery to the enemy in hunger, thirst, and nakedness; that is, nakedness would be a curse for their own sinfulness. Likewise, Is. 47:3 says 'your nakedness will be uncovered and your shame will be exposed.' There are numerous similar examples. To say that becoming nude in front of someone would put you in a position of power over them is just wrong. To become naked was not a power play but a cause for shame.

Second, Bell assumes that what was true of Jewish culture was also true of the Romans. But even a rudimentary knowledge of ancient Roman culture exposes this as ludicrous. This was a culture known for their manifold public bath houses in which men soaked together both nude and partially nude while discussing business. Also, the Romans, who perfected crucifixion, routinely crucified their victims completely nude on crosses positioned right along the major thoroughfares. And don’t forget the ancient Roman art rife with images of the naked body. These were people who had no problem whatsoever with nudity. But Rob Bell wants us to believe that a Jew could so shame a Roman by getting naked in front of them that the Roman would be forced to treat them as an equal? Please.

Again, what does the text say? “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.” Now jump back to v.39a: “Do not resist an evil person.” Put them together and what do you have? Do not resist an evil person – if he wants to take your shirt, give him your coat also. Friends, there are undoubtedly some things that Jesus said during His time here that are very difficult to understand, but these are not them. This is as straightforward as it gets.

There is still so much to cover and this post is getting pretty long, so I’m going to have to break this up. But keep looking at the passage. Check out v.41 and search for why Bell’s interpretation won’t work. Also, look at v.42, which Bell omitted, and determine why it was far more convenient for him to ignore it than to face it.

Look at the larger context, too – the Sermon on the Mount, chapters 5-7. Does Bell’s interpretation fit? And does Bell’s interpretation match the example set for us by Jesus?